GN Toilets

Cordell

spodoinkle wrote: »

I went to sit an exam in the Kilmore Centre in Cavan a few months back, I need a wee before and went to the gents which was locked. Went to the closet toilet (disabled) and a gent was leaving as I went in, place STUNK out. Went for the wee, washed and left, a serious STENCH still lingering. As I opened the door, a queue of 3 semi-attractive women waiting. As I walked out the door and one walked in, I could hear her roar of the state of the toilet. I had to share an exam hall with these ladies for the next 3 hours.

GN Toilets? GTFO.

Actually, with GN toilets you may be enlightened to the fact that semi-attractive women are perfectly capable to stink up the place. Fully-attractive women, not so much :pac:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has decided that any facts are not to be expressed? That’s a fairly odd take on the right to freedom of expression, particularly as it applies to protect you just as much as anyone else in society.

No one needs protection from others in regards to facts.
We are going through a phase in which the opinions and feelings are more valued and protected that the facts.

One eyed Jack

Cordell wrote: »

No one needs protection from others in regards to facts.
We are going through a phase in which the opinions and feelings are more valued and protected that the facts.

A phase? It’s a fact that the fundamental principles of human rights are based entirely upon valuing and protecting opinions and feelings! Human rights are an acknowledgment of the inherent values of human dignity and respect. It’s as though you imagine your opinions and your feelings are deserving of greater respect than anyone who disagrees with your opinions. They’re perfectly entitled to, as they have the same rights to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression as you do.

Cordell

Yes, as I said before, I'm not an arsehole so I'm conscious of what I say and how it can affect other's feelings. But that is my choice!!

And, as a matter of principle, you're not entitled to opinions. Here, this picture explains it better:
https://imgur.com/a/QOAH55c

Sir Oxman

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Irish people are not bothered either for or against trans self id so this whole "it would be voted down in a referendum" is an irrelevant point really.

On the other hand though remember too trans people have strong allies here in Ireland and that very very few Irish feminists went down the TERF exclusionary route (like UK and US) and specfically stood in solidarity with trans people.
https://feministire.com/2018/01/22/an-open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-the-we-need-to-talk-tour-from-a-group-of-feminists-in-ireland/

The vast, vast majority of Irish people had zero say as self-id law was rapidly ran through on the back of the marriage referendum victory.

Feminism movements and orgs are amazing things - they are usually places for open discussion and thought, exchange of ideas etc
the very idea you think that letter announces anything less than an exclusionary, authoritarian stance from the undersigned says a hell of a lot.

Oh.
And 'TERF' is an abusive term towards women more than likely accompanied by actual violence, violent threats and misogyny.

EDITED to include tweet re-Irish extreme TRA feminists mentioned in thread, boards.ie users choose who you listen to on this issue very, very carefully:
https://twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1192445816792920064?s=20

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1192532885925957632?s=20

One eyed Jack

Cordell wrote: »

Yes, as I said before, I'm not an arsehole so I'm conscious of what I say and how it can affect other's feelings. But that is my choice!!

Well it’s also your right, and you are protected from discrimination and persecution for your beliefs and opinions by those same human rights which apply to all people in any given jurisdiction which recognises and acknowledges the principles of human rights.

Cordell wrote: »

And, as a matter of principle, you're not entitled to opinions. Here, this picture explains it better:

Have we not just been talking about the fundamental human rights like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? I absolutely am entitled to my opinions, as is everyone in any jurisdiction which acknowledges the principles of human rights. That’s why you absolutely have the right to tell me I’m not entitled to an opinion, and I have the right to ignore your declarations as they have no standing in law.

Cordell

Again, for the third time I think, stating facts is not discrimination and persecution. Facts, not opinions.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well it’s also your right, and you are protected from discrimination and persecution for your beliefs and opinions by those same human rights which apply to all people in any given jurisdiction which recognises and acknowledges the principles of human rights.





Have we not just been talking about the fundamental human rights like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression? I absolutely am entitled to my opinions, as is everyone in any jurisdiction which acknowledges the principles of human rights. That’s why you absolutely have the right to tell me I’m not entitled to an opinion, and I have the right to ignore your declarations as they have no standing in law.

You have the right to your opinion. You also have no right to be accepted as correct when you are wrong. The belief that you are right does not make it so and it is not discrimination to not adhere to your belief.

One eyed Jack

Cordell wrote: »

Again, for the third time I think, stating facts is not discrimination and persecution. Facts, not opinions.

Again, for the third time too I guess, nobody is arguing that stating facts is discrimination and persecution. Laws which limit your freedom of expression are based upon whether or not your opinions are likely to cause offence or are offensive. You appear to be unclear about what constitutes human rights, and as I explained already, they aren’t based upon facts, they’re based upon feelings. That’s a fact too -

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin, or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.


Human Rights, Wikipedia


Hey if we’re doing wore out cliches like the “facts don’t care about your feelings”, I’ve got one too -

You’re entitled to your facts, you’re not entitled to an audience.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have the right to your opinion. You also have no right to be accepted as correct when you are wrong. The belief that you are right does not make it so and it is not discrimination to not adhere to your belief.

That same standard applies to you too, so I’m not getting what point you’re trying to make in stating the blatantly obvious which I am acutely aware of already, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow you are exempt from your own standards which you feel should apply to other people and not to you?

Am I missing something?

Sorry td, I think I misread your point. I think you were just explaining the point Cordell is trying to make?

Cordell

Where are the feelings mentioned there?
That clichee is in fact a fact :pac:

One eyed Jack

Cordell wrote: »

Where are the feelings mentioned there?
That clichee is in fact a fact :pac:

The feelings aren’t mentioned. I figured since we were doing wore out cliches...

I’m still no clearer on whatever point you’re trying to make, as it’s quite clear that facts aren’t the determining factor in human rights law. You’re entitled to state what you believe are facts, I haven’t disputed that, and you haven’t disputed the fact that you’re not entitled to harass or offend people, because nobody has that right, nor does the right to freedom of expression imply anyone has that right.

coffee_cake

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Who said they are a threat because they are transgender? Males are a threat to females in prison, solely because of their sex. Their self identified gender doesn't come into it. The 1 in 50 males in UK prisons identifying as women would be a threat to women if they were transferred to female institutions, even if they arent all sex offenders (although they are over represented in that figure). Because they are male and should not be put with females simply because of their self declaration that they are women. I'm not sure how you can dispute that.

I don't know if this was covered already, but they have been already, based on self id it looks like.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/male-born-transgender-sex-offender-moved-womens-prison-limerick-171283

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/female-prisoner-takes-government-to-court-after-alleged-assault-by-transgender-inmate-n5wtg2nf7

at least it is being challenged in court ,but how many women should be assaulted first?


someone mentioned terfs being threatened - yes indeed. it's only ever applied to women. a 'woke' way to threaten women. business as usual.
https://i.redd.it/ik8w0nha8jw31.jpg

Cordell

So if it's based on what you think about yourself and what you like maybe gay men should be moved to women prisons and gay women to men prisons I'm surprised that more men don't avail of this opportunity to serve time in women prisons.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

So if it's based on what you think about yourself and what you like maybe gay men should be moved to women prisons and gay women to men prisons I'm surprised that more men don't avail of this opportunity to serve time in women prisons.

Gay does not equate to trans.

Cordell

Yeah I didn't know that

So

[gay man]: just as most of the women I like having sex with other men. Can I go to women prison?
NO!

[drag queen]: just as most of the women I like dressing up in women clothes. Can I go to women prison?
NO!
.
.
.

[trans person]: In my own mind I am a woman. Can I go to women prison?
Absolutely!

If there's nothing wrong with the above then fair play.

weldoninhio

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cut out the nonsense and bullsh and then you follow up with that?

Who would carry out this chromosome testing on the population?

Who is going to pay for it?

How do you intend to police it and how do you intend to collect fines from say for example someone like me who doesn’t care what sign is on the door? I’ll quickly tell you to piss off if you came near me looking for any kind of payment of a fine or to submit myself to any form of chromosome testing :pac:

Could be done at birth. Ireland needs to catch up with the rest of Europe and being out a national identity card. It could be put on that. Viola. No need for GN toilets, xx and xy. Same could apply for all sports.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

Yeah I didn't know that

So

[gay man]: just as most of the women I like having sex with other men. Can I go to women prison?
NO!

[drag queen]: just as most of the women I like dressing up in women clothes. Can I go to women prison?
NO!
.
.
.

[trans person]: In my own mind I am a woman. Can I go to women prison?
Absolutely!

If there's nothing wrong with the above then fair play.

I'm not disagreeing that self identification is absolutely ridiculous chief.

It's just that people get antsy when lumped in with the trans group.

Cordell

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to determine the gender for prison assignment reasons by anything other than biological gender. No lumping whatsoever

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to determine the gender for prison assignment reasons by anything other than biological gender. No lumping whatsoever

In that case, I apologise chief. We are in total agreement.

is_that_so

A tweet and thread on this theme. Not quite as advertised!

https://twitter.com/annalouiseadams/status/1193830645547642880

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re implying that anyone would go to bat for a rapist which is an embarrassment of an argument tbh. The point of self-ID isn’t about rapists, if you want to address the question of men who commit rape, then start with the vast majority of men who aren’t transgender, and there you’ll come to a point where you’re going to end up being accused of throwing women under the bus merely by your presence in public spaces. You’re a threat to the female sex, solely by virtue of your sex... apparently :rolleyes:

Surely male rapists ending up in prison with women is an unintended consequence of these self id laws, thus whilst self id laws aren't about rapists in the main, it can lead to situations were it does become about rapists (or better still the protection biological female inmates).

It is the unintended consequences of self id that is the point I believe.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yes, that is how stupid the argument sounds. Nobody is throwing anyone under the bus. Instead, the intent, and it shouldn’t have to be pointed out but anyway - they intent is to pull people out from under the bus, people like who shouldn’t have had to fight the State for the best part of two decades for the legal right to have her preferred gender recognised in law. That is all the gender recognition act does. It doesn’t take rights away from anyone else. Women still have the same rights they had in 2015, men still have the same rights they had in 2015, and now everyone in Irish society, has the right to be identified in law as their preferred gender.

It is not a stupid argument if the person has already been convicted. We thus know that they are a danger to the very group they want to be housed with. There is a duty of care that needs to be applied to prisoners, and putting a self-ided women (i.e. someone still having a penis) in with women fails in that duty of care, particularly if that person has been convicted of sexual and/or violent crimes against women.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who commit rape are a red herring thrown in purely out of spite, similar to the way in which any time some people don’t want other people to have the same rights they have, they’ll pull out the idea of them being a threat to society solely by virtue of the trait that person just doesn’t like. People do the same with sexual orientation and religion and a whole host of other traits, and frankly it’s fairly transparent and disingenuous as an argument, making it simply impossible to take seriously.

I'd disagree. Do you think male bodied people should be allowed to compete with women in professional sports for example?